Partly allowed

Walmiki Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Feb 2018WP/8509/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by an unaided school against the Education Officer seeking retroactive permission to run a second division of 10th standard. The Court held that impossible to alter past years directly but directed the authorities to reconsider the decision for the academic year 2004-05 based on existing laws and policies.

What did the court decide?

Ordered Education Officer to reconsider decision for additional 10th standard division from academic year 2004-05 and communicate decision by end of April 2018.

Walmiki Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

8509.16wp.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITOIN NO. 8509 OF 2016

¶5

1. Walmiki Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Gavane Road, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani, Through its Secretary

¶6

2. Shantabai Nakhate Vidyalaya Kasapuri, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani Through its Head Master

¶7

..PETITIONERS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶10

2. The Director of Eduction (Secondary & Higher Secondary), Maharashtra State, Pune-1.

¶11

3. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

¶12

4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.

¶13

..RESPONDENTS

¶14

.....

¶15

Shri V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent/State.

¶16

.....

¶17

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶18

 S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

¶19

Reserved on : 06.02.2018
 Pronounced on : 22.02.2018

¶20

¶21

8509.16wp.odt

¶22

JUDGMENT : (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶23

.Rule.Rulemadereturnable

¶24

forthwith. With the consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties, heard
finally.

¶25

2.The background facts for filing the
present Petition, as disclosed in the memo,
in brief are as under:

¶26

It is the case of the petitioners

¶27

that, petitioner no.1 is an educational
institution and has been running petitioner
no.2 – secondary school having 5th to 10th
standard. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 16th

¶28

November, 1993 have granted permission to run
petitioner no.2 school from the academic year

¶29

1993-1994 on no grant basis at village

¶30

Kasapuri, Tq. Pathri. It is the case of the
petitioners that, as per natural growth, the
Respondents have also granted permission to

¶31

8509.16wp.odt

¶32

¶33

run 9th and 10th standard classes in petitioner
no.2 – school from the academic year 1994-95
and 1995-96 respectively. Thereafter, due to
increase of strength of students in 8th class,
petitioner no.2 became eligible to get 2nd
division as per natural growth, and
accordingly, Respondent No.4 by order dated
16th March, 2001 granted permission to run 2nd
division of 8th class from the year 2000-2001
on no grant basis. Thereafter, as per natural
growth, petitioner no.2 – school also became
eligible to get 2nd division of 9th class from
the year 2001-02, and accordingly Respondent
No.4 by order dated 5th November, 2004 granted
permission to run 2nd division of 9th class
from the year 2001-02 on no grant basis, and
from the respective years petitioner no.2 –
school is running two divisions of 8th and 9th
classes.

¶34

3.It is the case of the petitioners

¶35

8509.16wp.odt

¶36

¶37

that, in due course, as per the policy of the
State Government for sanction of grant-in-

¶38

aid, 8th to 10th classes of petitioner no.2-
school became eligible for getting grants in
phases. Accordingly, Respondent No.4 by order
dated 10th January, 2007 for the year 2006-07
sanctioned 40% and 60% grant-in-aid to all
the classes including 8th to 10th standard of
petitioner no.2 – school. Again Respondent
No.4 by order dated 18th July, 2007 sanctioned

¶39

60% and 80% grant-in-aid for the year
2007-08. It is the case of the petitioners

¶40

that, thereafter by order dated 28th July,

¶41

2008, Respondent No.4 sanctioned 80% grants

¶42

for the year 2007-08 and 100% grants for the
year 2008-09 to 2nd division of 8th class. So
also by order dated 21stJune, 2009,

¶43

Respondent No.4 sanctioned 80% grants for the
year 2007-08 and 100% grants for the year
2008-09 to 2nd division of 9th class. It is the

¶44

case of the petitioners that, since two

¶45

¶46

8509.16wp.odt

¶47

divisions of 9th class were run by petitioner
no.2 – school from the year 2001-02, the
strength of students in 10th class has been
increased in the year 2002-2003, and from
that year the strength of students of 10th
class is more than 70. Therefore, the 10th
class of petitioner no.2 – school was also
entitled to get 2nd division in view of
natural growth on no grant basis from the
year 2002-2003 itself, as per the policy of

¶48

the State Government in view of the
Government Resolution dated 30th April, 2001.
It is the case of the petitioners that, in

¶49

view of the above, the petitioners moved
proposal before Respondent No.4 in the year
2003 itself, seeking permission to run 2nd
division of 10th class and thereafter also

¶50

made persuasion from time to time. However,
Respondent Authorities did not consider the
said proposal for grant of 2nd division in 10th
class for years together.

¶51

8509.16wp.odt

¶52

¶53

In the meanwhile, the strength of

¶54

students of 10th class of petitioner no.2 were
increasing and from the year 2006-07 till the
year 2012-13, strength of 10th class is more
than 120, which is clear from staff sanction
letters issued by Respondent No.4 every year.

¶55

It is the case of the petitioners that,
thereafter again petitioner no.2 moved
proposal dated 18.09.2007 before Respondent
No.4 for grant of 2nd division of 10th standard
as per the natural growth. However, the said
proposal has neither been responded nor
considered.

¶56

4.It is the case of the petitioners

¶57

that, Respondent authorities did not consider

¶58

the proposal of the petitioners for

¶59

permission to run 2nd division of 10th standard
in petitioner no.2 -school as per natural
growth from the year 2002-03 on no grant

¶60

¶61

8509.16wp.odt

¶62

basis, as per the policy of the State
Government existing during relevant period
and the claim of the petitioners has been
considered for grant of 2nd divisions for 8th
and 9th classes. The Respondent authorities
earlier did not consider the claim of the
petitioners for years together for grant of
2nd division of 10th class as per natural
growth from the year 2002-03 as per the
policy then existing, namely, Government

¶63

Resolution dated 30th April, 1991 and in the
year 2012 only wrongly included the said
additional division for permission with other

¶64

schools and accordingly, respondent No.1
issued order/G.R. dated 16th August, 2012.
Respondent No.4 by order dated 4th January,
2013 granted permission to run 2nd additional
division of 10th standard from the year
2012-13, and that too on no grant basis,
meaning thereby that from the year 2012-13.

¶65

8509.16wp.odt

¶66

¶67

5.Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that, the impugned order
dated 4th January, 2013 issued by Respondent
No.4 is discriminatory, capricious and
arbitrary, which has not only resulted
injustice to the petitioners but also to the

¶68

students of the said division and the
teaching staff of said division, which is
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, and hence, it is
necessary to quash and set aside the order
dated 4th January, 2013 issued by Respondent
No.4, and it is necessary to direct the

¶69

respondents to grant permission of 2nd
division of 10th class in petitioner No.2
school from the year 2002-2003 on no grant
basis and from the year 2010-2011 on 100%
grant-in-aid.

¶70

6.Pursuant to the notices issued to
the Respondents, Respondent No.4 has filed

¶71

¶72

8509.16wp.odt

¶73

the affidavit in reply. It is stated in the
saidaffidavitinreplythat,by
communication dated 4th January, 2013, the
office of the Education Officer has granted
permission for additional divisions for 7th
standard, 3rd division for 8th standard and
second division for 10th standard from 2012-13

¶74

on no grant basis on certain terms and
conditions. It is stated that, as per the
Government Resolutions dated 18th October,
2000, 15th November, 2011, 16th March, 2012 and
16th August, 2012, the 100% grants to the
unaidededucationalinstitutionsis

¶75

permissible after period of five years from
the date of their eligibility for evaluation
i.e. 20% for first year, 40% for second year,
60% for third year, 80% for fourth year and
100% for 5th year. Therefore, learned A.G.P.
appearing for the Respondent/State, relying
upon the averments in the affidavit in reply,
submits that, the impugned decision is in

¶76

8509.16wp.odt

¶77

¶78

consonance with the policy of the State
Government, and therefore, this Court may not
entertain the Petition.

¶79

7.We have considered the submissions
of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for
Respondent/State. With their able assistance,
we have perused the pleadings in the
Petition, grounds taken therein, annexures
thereto and the reply filed by Respondent
No.4.

¶80

8.At this juncture, it would be apt to
make reference to the factual aspects stated
in para 4 of the Petition. It is stated in
the said paragraph that, since two divisions
of 9th class were run in petitioner no.2 –
school from the year 2001-02, the strength of
students in 10th class came to be increased in

¶81

the year 2002-2003, and from that year the

¶82

¶83

8509.16wp.odt

¶84

strength of students of 10th class is more

¶85

than 70. Therefore, the 10thclass of

¶86

petitioner no.2 – school was also entitled to
get 2nd division in view of natural growth on
no grant basis from the year 2002-2003
itself, as per the policy of the State
Government by Government Resolution dated 30th

¶87

April, 2001. It is the case of the
petitioners that, therefore, the petitioners
moved proposal before Respondent No.4 in the

¶88

year 2003 itself seeking permission to run 2nd
division of 10th class and thereafter also
made persuasions from time to time. However,

¶89

Respondent Authorities did not consider the
said proposal for grant of 2nd division in 10th
class for years together. In the meanwhile,

¶90

the strength of 10th class of petitioner no.2
went on increasing and from the year 2006-07
till the year 2012-13, strength of 10th class
is more than 120, which is clear from staff
sanction letters issued by Respondent No.4

¶91

¶92

8509.16wp.odt

¶93

every year. It is the case of the petitioners
that, thereafter again petitioner no.2 moved
proposal dated 18.09.2007 before Respondent
No.4 for grant of 2nd division of 10th standard
as per the natural growth. However, the said
proposal has neither been responded nor
considered.

¶94

9.It appears that, the Respondent

¶95

Authorities considered the proposal of the
petitioners for permission to run second
division of 10th standard in petitioner no.2 –
school, however, by the impugned decision,

¶96

the second division of 10th standard is
approved since the academic year 2013.

¶97

10.In that view of the matter, keeping

¶98

in view the aforementioned aspects, we direct
Respondent No. 4 to reconsider the decision
of granting additional division, keeping in
view the gradual increase of the students for

¶99

8509.16wp.odt

¶100

¶101

10th standard for the academic year 2004-2005

¶102

and also keeping in view the relevant policy
existing at the relevant time in the year
2004-2005, when the petitioners applied for
additional divisions of the 10th standard.
Such decision to be taken by Respondent No.4,
as expeditiously as possible, however,
preferably by the end of April, 2018 and
communicate the said decision to the Director
of Education, to the office of Respondent
No.3 and the petitioners also.

¶103

11.The Petition is partly allowed and
the same stands disposed of. Rule made
absolute accordingly.

¶104

12.The parties shall act upon

¶105

authenticated copy of this order.

¶106

[S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶107

SGA

Walmiki Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Walmiki Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Manikrao Sakhare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Ashruba Wanve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaskar Eknath Dhere and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shashikant Gulchand Londhe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhausaheb Sukhdeo Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhikaji Bhaurao Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others